Senator Steps Up Defense of Military Justice System

Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.), stepping up his defense of the military justice system, released letters from the military that question the wisdom of stripping commanders of the power to oversee sexual-assault prosecutions, a change championed by a bipartisan group of senators.

The Senate Armed Services Committee, which Mr. Levin leads, voted against legislation pushed by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) that give the power to determine whether to pursue sexual assault charges against a member of the military to independent prosecutors, removing the authority from military commanders.

But Ms. Gillibrand’s push to change the military justice system is gaining support in the Senate, with some 43 co-sponsors, apparently prompting Mr. Levin to make a new push to block the change.

Mr. Levin said he believes other changes to the military justice system backed by the committee, like high level review of decisions not to prosecute serious crimes, will be more effective at curbing sexual assaults than stripping commanders of authority.

“The power to initiate case is the strongest weapon commanders have to change the climate in their unit,” Mr. Levin said.

In one letter to Sen. Levin, Adm. James Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, outlined the sexual assault cases where civilian authorities declined to prosecute, but military commanders ordered judicial proceedings.

According to the letter the Army, which had 32 such cases go to court-martial, with an 81% conviction rate. The Marine Corps had 28 cases local authorities passed on go to court martial, with a 51% conviction rate. The Navy had three cases go to court martial, with one conviction. The Air Force pursued 10 such assault cases and had nine convictions.

“I believe these statistics demonstrate the personal ownership commanders take in the discipline of their units—even in the face of often challenging circumstances,” Adm. Winnefeld wrote.

He outlined an Army case where two soldiers were accused of having sex with a victim intoxicated by alcohol. When local authorities dropped the case, military investigators opened a new case and the soldiers were court martialed.

“In cases like these and others, which independent authorities declined to pursue, commanders recognized the need to hold service members accountable for their crimes,” Adm. Winnefeld wrote.

In a second letter, Brig. Gen. Richard Gross, the legal counsel to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, outlined the Pentagon’s analysis of allied military’s justice system.

Advocates of stripping military commanders of the authority to oversee sexual assault prosecutions, have pointed to the decision of American allies to hand responsibility of criminal prosecutions to civilian authorities.

But Gen. Gross said in his letter that commanders have been stripped of authority to protect the rights of the accused, not the rights of the victims, largely in response to local court rulings or the European Court of Human Rights.

“No allied country changed its system in response to sexual assault crimes specifically or the rights of victims generally,” Gen. Gross wrote.

Mr. Levin said that Gen. Gross’s letter was a “potent answer” to one of the most frequently cited arguments of advocates for overhauling the military justice system.

“The reason that the allies have removed commanders from the prosecution process is not because they want to help victims,” Mr. Levin said. “Look at why they have done it, it is not to protect victims, it is to protect defendants.”

About Washington Wire

Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what’s happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.